The Demise of Evolution

[MIDutch]

Direct evidence can only happen after people turn to Jesus and observe how He work in their lives. This cannot be explained in a few lines.

Do you accept the evidence of people from other religions who have had the same experiences within their religions?

Wouldn't that be evidence that THEIR religions are as valid as yours is?

 

[MIDutch]

Do you have proof that they are reborn.?, if you said you are ready to believe without proof....

Do you have proof that people go to (the Christian) heaven or hell?

 

[ananda]

I wasn't talking about valie system.
.
My point is if you believe in Buddhism, what will happen to the farmer in the next life? Is he reborn as another creature? What will happen to the insect? Do you have proof that they are reborn.?, if you said you are ready to believe without proof....

I have no knowledge that any particular individual is reborn in any particular way. What I do know is cause & effect, however, and I expect the constitutent energies that form an individual to go wherever they've been directed to.

I am well familiar with Buddhism. Buddhists feel that destiny is in their owm hands, and that's what people like to feel. The question is what is the real ending for people 's souls

The real question behind that question, imo, is suffering and contentment/bliss. We seek answers about the soul, gods, saviors, heavens, etc. for one reason: to alleviate suffering and to maximize contentment & bliss.

 

[Kylie]

My reply to your post was intended for ananda

And how was Ananda meant to know, considering there was nothing in the post to indicate it was anything more than a response to me?

 

[roman2819]

Do you accept the evidence of people from other religions who have had the same experiences within their religions?

Wouldn't that be evidence that THEIR religions are as valid as yours is?

There are three levels i based my faith on:
A. Creation point to a Creator. It is like overwhelming circumstantial evidences, millions of it.
B. The Scriptures which is backed up by history, archaeology, science and prophecies that have been fulfilled
C. Personal relationship with a living Saviour and God eg answered prayers etc

I know people from different religions and although some have certain experiences with their gods , however, that experiences is very very sporadic. Eg a chinese in Singapore may go to temple to pray for wealth and v soon, he strike lottery. He said that the god at that temple is good. Later, he went again many times but did not get such result. For other religions, i rarely hear them share any personal experiences. But interesting is the fact that most believe in some form of god.

Other religions have manuscripts but which isnt backed up by history, archaeology, science or prophecy. Far from it. Their manuscripts contain anecdotes, karma and being a good person.

However they looked at the creation and order in the ecosystem and universe, and they do believe there is a creator or gods, even though they don't have the proof. They cannot deny the overwhelming evidences. Why is atheists the very very few minority on earth, maybe 2-3%?

If you really think there is no god, why do u join this forum to discuss it? Wouldn't you brush off this Christian-god stuff as total rubbish fantasy? For example, people who have no interests in soccer won't even bother if the world cup is on. I have no interests to tour the North or South Poles, so don't even bother talking to me about it.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

There are three levels i based my faith on:
A. Creation point to a Creator. It is like overwhelming circumstantial evidences, millions of it.
B. The Scriptures which is backed up by history, archaeology, science and prophecies that have been fulfilled
C. Personal relationship with a living Saviour and God eg answered prayers etc

I know people from different religions and although some have certain experiences with their gods , however, that experiences is very very sporadic. Eg a chinese in Singapore may go to temple to pray for wealth and v soon, he strike lottery. He said that the god at that temple is good. Later, he went again many times but did not get such result. For other religions, i rarely hear them share any personal experiences. But interesting is the fact that most believe in some form of god.

You claim that there is 'overwhelming circumstantial evidences' for creation, then where is this evidence. As when the evidence is properly collected and analysed, there is a lot of hard evidence for natural explanations of the world and life that does not require a creator.

You are claiming that Christians' experience of the supernatural is different frorm that of people of other religions. Can you give stronger evidence of that than a single constructed example. There are plenty of people from different religions who are prepared to die for their religion and who claim that they have direct experience of God or there gods. E.g. Experience of God in Hinduism along the Gîtâ

We see these claims all the time. People from different religions claim that their religion is special, and distinct from all others. However, people from all reliigions claim this and none of them can build a stronger case than any other. The obvious conclusion in my eyes: no religion is more supported by evidence than any other, and therefore they are all wrong. If one of them was divinely inspired, then it should be recognisably different from all the other ones.

Other religions have manuscripts but which isnt backed up by history, archaeology, science or prophecy. Far from it. Their manuscripts contain anecdotes, karma and being a good person.

People from other religions claim the same about their holy books. https://isaalmasih.net/archaeology-isa/quran-archaeology.html Hindu Prophecies - Crystalinks There is nothing in The Bible to show knowledge outside of what people at that time would have known. And nothing to show the authors of The Bible made prophecies that imply supernatural knowledge. Aggressive interpretation of the text to shoe-horn in scientific discoveries or propehcy does not count as that can be done with any religious text.

However they looked at the creation and order in the ecosystem and universe, and they do believe there is a creator or gods, even though they don't have the proof. They cannot deny the overwhelming evidences. Why is atheists the very very few minority on earth, maybe 2-3%?

Are you claiming that the fact that the majority of people in the world are religious in some way shows that religion is correct? If we go back to the correct time period, most people in the world would have believed that the world is flat and other incorrect beliefs. BTW: It's about 7%, and rising. Demographics of atheism - Wikipedia

If you really think there is no god, why do u join this forum to discuss it? Wouldn't you brush off this Christian-god stuff as total rubbish fantasy? For example, people who have no interests in soccer won't even bother if the world cup is on. I have no interests to tour the North or South Poles, so don't even bother talking to me about it.

Why not? People debate online. This is entirely normal.

 

[Speedwell]

There are three levels i based my faith on:
A. Creation point to a Creator. It is like overwhelming circumstantial evidences, millions of it.
B. The Scriptures which is backed up by history, archaeology, science and prophecies that have been fulfilled
C. Personal relationship with a living Saviour and God eg answered prayers etc

I know people from different religions and although some have certain experiences with their gods , however, that experiences is very very sporadic. Eg a chinese in Singapore may go to temple to pray for wealth and v soon, he strike lottery. He said that the god at that temple is good. Later, he went again many times but did not get such result. For other religions, i rarely hear them share any personal experiences. But interesting is the fact that most believe in some form of god.

Other religions have manuscripts but which isnt backed up by history, archaeology, science or prophecy. Far from it. Their manuscripts contain anecdotes, karma and being a good person.

However they looked at the creation and order in the ecosystem and universe, and they do believe there is a creator or gods, even though they don't have the proof. They cannot deny the overwhelming evidences. Why is atheists the very very few minority on earth, maybe 2-3%?

If you really think there is no god, why do u join this forum to discuss it? Wouldn't you brush off this Christian-god stuff as total rubbish fantasy? For example, people who have no interests in soccer won't even bother if the world cup is on. I have no interests to tour the North or South Poles, so don't even bother talking to me about it.

Why is it so hard for you to admit that belief in God is purely an act of faith? There is nothing for a Christian to be ashamed of in that.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Why is it so hard for you to admit that belief in God is purely an act of faith? There is nothing for a Christian to be ashamed of in that.

It's because so many want to take on the (unrealistic) challenge of "Evidence of God". There is no evidence for or against God, unless God is "The Bible". It smacks very strongly of huge insecurity and a need for "The Bible" to be more than the Bible actually is.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

There are three levels i based my faith on:
A. Creation point to a Creator. It is like overwhelming circumstantial evidences, millions of it.
B. The Scriptures which is backed up by history, archaeology, science and prophecies that have been fulfilled
C. Personal relationship with a living Saviour and God eg answered prayers etc

A. There is no evidence of a Creation as described in the bible.
B. I'll say the Scriptures are not supported in any meaningful way (and are often contradicted) by history, archaeology, science and failed prophecies.
C. This is the single point I cannot argue with, but it is also the only point you cannot even start to try to demonstrate.

 

[Job 33:6]

B. I'll say the Scriptures are not supported in any meaningful way (and are often contradicted) by history, archaeology, science and failed prophecies.

On point number 2, as far as I can tell, many scholars, if not most, who study the history of Christianity, recognize that locations in which Jesus was said to speak at, were real places. Many scholars, if not most, also recognize that Jesus was likely a real person as well.

Here is an example of a historian from 60CE who writes of Jesus as a real person:

Josephus - Wikipedia

He describes the Sadducees, Jewish High Priests of the time, Pharisees and Essenes, the Herodian Temple, Quirinius' census and the Zealots, and such figures as Pontius Pilate, Herod the Great, Agrippa I and Agrippa II, John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, and Jesus (found only in the Slavonic version of the Jewish War).[47] Josephus represents an important source for studies of immediate post-Temple Judaism and the context of early Christianity.

Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia

It also references other figures of the New Testament as well.

"Almost all modern scholars reject the authenticity of this passage in its present form, while the majority of scholars nevertheless hold that it contains an authentic nucleus referencing the execution of Jesus by Pilate, which was then subject to Christian interpolation and/or alteration.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] The exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear, however.[11][12]"

 

[Speedwell]

On point number 2, as far as I can tell, many scholars, if not most, who study the history of Christianity, recognize that locations in which Jesus was said to speak at, were real places. Many scholars, if not most, also recognize that Jesus was likely a real person as well.

Here is an example of a historian from 60CE who writes of Jesus as a real person:

Josephus - Wikipedia

He describes the Sadducees, Jewish High Priests of the time, Pharisees and Essenes, the Herodian Temple, Quirinius' census and the Zealots, and such figures as Pontius Pilate, Herod the Great, Agrippa I and Agrippa II, John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, and Jesus (found only in the Slavonic version of the Jewish War).[47] Josephus represents an important source for studies of immediate post-Temple Judaism and the context of early Christianity.

Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia

It also references other figures of the New Testament as well.

"Almost all modern scholars reject the authenticity of this passage in its present form, while the majority of scholars nevertheless hold that it contains an authentic nucleus referencing the execution of Jesus by Pilate, which was then subject to Christian interpolation and/or alteration.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] The exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear, however.[11][12]"

None of which supports the assertion being made, that the precise historical accuracy of the Bible--particularly with regard to the OT texts--is objectively demonstrable.

 

[Job 33:6]

None of which supports the assertion being made, that the precise historical accuracy of the Bible--particularly with regard to the OT texts--is objectively demonstrable.

As far as what? Spirits killing first borns or?

My above post, I would say, serves as what appears to be likely historical evidence for Jesus. Archaeological evidence deals more in artifacts and, there is no real reason to believe that a statue would have been erected for Jesus or anything that would demonstrate that Jesus lived, anymore than any other person in history beyond Roman leaders.

However, if Jesus lived and truly was crucified (as some historic evidence appears to suggest), there isn't much reason to doubt that Jesus would habe taught among the Mount of Olives or in temples or other historic towns of that time that are noted in scripture.

 

[Speedwell]

As far as what? Spirits killing first borns or?

Prescient scientific knowledge and fulfilled prophecy. As far as I can make out, Evangelical Christianity is not based on faith in Christ, but on the objectively demonstrable accuracy of Scripture which compels acceptance of Christ.

 

[Job 33:6]

Prescient scientific knowledge and fulfilled prophecy. As far as I can make out, Evangelical Christianity is not based on faith in Christ, but on the objectively demonstrable accuracy of Scripture which compels acceptance of Christ.

I don't think that @roman2819 was strictly talking about scientific backing of prophecies. Here is his above post:

"B. The Scriptures which is backed up by history, archaeology, science and prophecies that have been fulfilled"

He didn't say history, archaeology and science of prophecies. He said "and", suggesting that part of his faith relates to historicity of scripture. Which is what I was speaking in reference to above.

Maybe in past posts he clarified.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't think that @roman2819 was strictly talking about scientific backing of prophecies. Here is his above post:

"B. The Scriptures which is backed up by history, archaeology, science and prophecies that have been fulfilled"

He didn't say history, archaeology and science of prophecies. He said "and", suggesting that part of his faith relates to historicity of scripture. Which is what I was speaking in reference to above.

Maybe in past posts he clarified.

As an example, that Isaiah 40:22 is unequivocal proof that the Bible taught the sphericity of the Earth before it was known to science. Much discourse was devoted to that topic and it's alleged fundamental importance to the truth of the Christian religion. The prophecies of Daniel as well came up as well, the prescient accuracy of which depend on the book having actually been written during the Exile. I'm afraid that discussion did not go so well. As a Christian it concerns me to see the historical accuracy of the OT being preached as a substitute for the Gospel, as if the Gospel cannot be believed without it and need not be believed, but merely accepted, with it.

 

[Job 33:6]

As an example, that Isaiah 40:22 is unequivocal proof that the Bible taught the sphericity of the Earth before it was known to science. Much discourse was devoted to that topic and it's alleged fundamental importance to the truth of the Christian religion. The prophecies of Daniel as well came up as well, the prescient accuracy of which depend on the book having actually been written during the Exile. I'm afraid that discussion did not go so well. As a Christian it concerns me to see the historical accuracy of the OT being preached as a substitute for the Gospel, as if the Gospel cannot be believed without it and need not be believed, but merely accepted, with it.

This doesn't appear to be historical or archaeological evidence, as noted in Roman's line item B.

 

[Speedwell]

This doesn't appear to be historical or archaeological evidence, as noted in Roman's line item B.

No, my examples relate to "science" and "prophecies." But it's the principle of the thing--seems like a misuse of scripture to me.

 

[Job 33:6]

No, my examples relate to "science" and "prophecies." But it's the principle of the thing--seems like a misuse of scripture to me.

Ok, well, if we return to my original response, I was personally not talking about science or prophecies, but rather historical material.

Thank you for sharing your ideas, but you're dragging me away from what I was originally talking about.

 

[Job 33:6]

Let's look back a few posts.

 

[Job 33:6]

@roman2819 said:

"There are three levels i based my faith on:"

And line item B was:
"B. The Scriptures which is backed up by history, archaeology, science and prophecies that have been fulfilled".

Meaning that part of his faith is based on historicity of scripture.

@Bungle_Bear said in response:
"B. I'll say the Scriptures are not supported in any meaningful way (and are often contradicted) by history, archaeology, science and failed prophecies.".

Meaning that, in his opinion, scripture was not supported in any significant way with relation to history or even archaeology. In response, I made post 1550, stating the following:

On point number 2, as far as I can tell, many scholars, if not most, who study the history of Christianity, recognize that locations in which Jesus was said to speak at, were real places. Many scholars, if not most, also recognize that Jesus was likely a real person as well.

Here is an example of a historian from 60CE who writes of Jesus as a real person:

Josephus - Wikipedia

He describes the Sadducees, Jewish High Priests of the time, Pharisees and Essenes, the Herodian Temple, Quirinius' census and the Zealots, and such figures as Pontius Pilate, Herod the Great, Agrippa I and Agrippa II, John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, and Jesus (found only in the Slavonic version of the Jewish War).[47] Josephus represents an important source for studies of immediate post-Temple Judaism and the context of early Christianity.

Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia

It also references other figures of the New Testament as well.

"Almost all modern scholars reject the authenticity of this passage in its present form, while the majority of scholars nevertheless hold that it contains an authentic nucleus referencing the execution of Jesus by Pilate, which was then subject to Christian interpolation and/or alteration.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] The exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear, however.[11][12]"


The point of the above being that according to many scholars, the Bible is historically supported in significant ways relating to the life of Jesus and the resurrection, as well as Jesus's journey etc.